Here is good news. The Christian Association for
Psychological Studies has sponsored and here published the first in a projected series of monographs on
"Christian Perspectives on Counseling and the Behavioral Sciences." The editor of the series and of
this monograph, Craig Ellison, is Associate Professor
of Psychology at Westmont College. The intent of this
series is in Ellison's words to: "describe and analyze
relationships between the Christian belief-system and
psychology from an orthodox theological perspective
. . . to provide a systematic forum for evangelical
professionals . . . valuable as supplementary texts in
colleges and seminaries." The intent is timely, the
goals laudable, and so we look forward to further
offerings in this series.

Ellison opens with a survey of current research in
social psychology on the determinants of self-esteem, including social sources,
parent-child relationships, community and culture. Next follow Calvinist theology of
self-esteem by Hoekema, and a Wesleyan theology by
Wise. Busby reviews psychiatric theorists and Sbostrom presents a self-actualizing viewpoint. Moberg
comments on social aspects of self-esteem, followed by
a personal account by an Inter Varsity staff member,
Cathy Schilke. Rottsebaffer concludes the clinical sections with an analysis of the relationship between selfesteem and depression. The final sections discuss
self-esteem in education, and some psychometric means
of measurement. Schilke was real, the psychologists
abstract.

A broad waterfront is covered in a quick type of
tourist excursion. You see the sights, but you really
don't get to know the city. What have we learned?
(1) The level of serious scholarship has gone up. It
is a pleasure not to find much special pleading here,
but rather some fairly serious scholars1lip, boih psychologically and theologically. (2) So much new
territory whizzes by that at times the scenery is
blurred. A clear definition of self is never given. So
it is difficult to know what the difference is between
self and self-esteem. Often these two concepts are
blurred by the authors. (3) The discussions are more
provocative and evocative than systematic, coherent,
and explanatory. Thus I bad to continually re-orient
myself in a maze of differing orientations as I progressed through the book. (4) The book does not lead
to any really specific guidelines for either the therapist, minister, or educator. The tone varies from that
of "just love everybody" to "it's better to be nice than
nasty" to "you have to be realistic."

The most fundamental problem, however, is interdisciplinary. Psychology and theology each begin with
different sets of constructs. The same words have
different referents in each system. The "self" before
God, is not necessarily the same as "self" before and
between humans. The theological concept of the depravity of man is not necessarily the same as psychological depravity. And so on. I believe that an
interdisciplinary discourse is both possible and necessary. But a careful vocabulary must be constructed.
This book does not attempt nor provide that vocabulary.

Attempting a difficult task, the book does not fully
succeed. But the attempt is noteworthy. If nothing
else, it should provide students and professors with
sources of ideas, and enlightened discussion. A great
first step! Our congratulations to the CAPS organization and to Professor Ellison for a good beginning.
Let us hope to shortly see more volumes in this series.

Reviewed by E. Mansell Pattison, M.D., Professor at Psychiatry and Human Behavior; Social Science; and Social
Ecology. Vice-Chairman, Department of Psychiatry and Human
Behavior, University of California, Irvine.

Out of the hands of an active civil engineer comes
a unique work attempting, through mathematics, to
invalidate Christianity. In the introduction Unwin
states that he is dealing "primarily with the Medieval
Christian beliefs which are the basis of modern Christian belief" (p. 7), hoping by discrediting these beliefs
to discredit Christianity today. His own theological
background appears to be limited to Catholicism, and
this is reflected in the statement, "Christianity is Judaism passed through the minds of a celibate clergy
headed by an absolutist monarchial, religious-political
authority, the Medieval Papacy" (p. 9).

The unique aspects of this treatise are centered
around mathematics. Claiming an Arabic numeral
system for the Hebrews, he tries to show the change
to the Roman numeral system in Medieval Christianity
as a leap in the wrong direction.

Chapter 2 "Infinity Becomes Limited", contains the
argument that Christianity limits the infinite by confining God to the Trinity, bread and wine, and therisen Christ. He sees these in
direct contradiction to Hebrew concepts of a less concrete Cod, and a
commandment that "Thou shalt erect no graven image of God."
Unrecognized in his text are equally "confining" Old Testament
features such as the Ark
of the Covenant and the
Holy of Holies. This reviewer sees none of these Old or New Testament features
as limiting, but for the sake of this argument, at least equivalent,

Among the
following chapters are: "Abstraction: Law Becomes a Person";
"Abstraction: Law Becomes a Person Who Sets Aside the Law";
"Abstraction: Law Becomes a Person; Inalienable Rights Become Ahenable;
Whatever the Top Man Permits." In each chapter he relates mathematical
reasoning to the two religions, with the purpose of demonstrating that Judaism
is the only logical belief system of the two.

Each
chapter includes "alternative Christian beliefs" covering the periods
before Christ and after Christ. These sections sum up the chapter's arguments
about the particular math concept and its relation to Christians and Jews, and
though the alternatives are not exhaustive, they do give good insight into
Unwin's reasoning. For example, one option "After Christ" in the
chapter "The Person Becomes Perfect" (referring to Jesus) states:
"The Hebrew religion is still valid but obsolete". Unwin argues,

The Hebrew understanding of the lack of perfection of persons
is the common sense one in agreement with modern mathematics. If it is obsolete,
then common sense and modern mathematics are obsolete too, as is the idea of
rule by the common people. Since common sense and modern mathematics are still
valid, Christ is not perfect except in an imaginary 'make it up as you go along'
sense. The New Testament concept of perfection of real objects is the old
obsolete one, discarded along with the rest of Roman numerals about eight
hundred years ago (p. 79).

On
page 75 he extrapolates, "If one accepts the perfection of Christ, one must
accet those who imitate Christ, the celibate Clergy, as eing perfect and as
having the right to rule with Christ."

One readily
obvious weakness of the book is the lack of literature citations. The
bibliography is adequate, but reasoning in the text is diminished by the lack of
referencing to both Scriptural and non-Scriptural sources.

A lack of
objectivity by the author is evident at many places in the book, often taking
what appears to be a bitter stance against the Church, such as, ". . . the
imitation of the celibate who has a mythology that authorizes him to dominate
and provoke others" (p. 49). His choice to write in such a way is a great
detraction from the book's scholarship, though his cynicism is often
entertaining.

The book is
an interesting one to read, and one of special attraction to Christians in the
sciences. It is doubtful that those well-grounded in the Scriptures will find it
convincing. In fact, if the reader will track down Biblical references as the
reading progresses, in all likelihood a reaffirmation of his own faith should
occur.

This
exercise at quantification (albeit a negative one) is admirable, but problems
are naturally inherent. When reducing spiritual matters to strictly empirical
ones, less than total representation occurs. This particular case of
oversimplification, though down to a workable scale, misses the main features of
Christianity (which are non-empiric), much as a knifewielding lumberjack who
attempts to fell a giant Redwood, and unable to do so, settles for a piece of
its bark.

I stopped by the local Christian bookstore the other day to
browse. A whole section caught my eye: paperback "do-it-yourself"
books of counseling, self-help, self-understanding, sedf-therapy, self-release,
self-actualization ... and on. This was one of the books-at least 50 copies
thereof, so it must be selling well.

The book
itself is not unusual for its type, not too good, not too bad. The author, a
Baptist minister, pastoral counselor, and executive director of Yokefellows,
Inc., focuses on guilt and anxiety as two basic troubling emotions. His intent
is to give the reader insight into the workings of these and kindred emotions so
that they can be used productively instead of destructively. His discussion is
personal, homely, and pretty sane and savvy. The not so good part is apersistent ring-kissing obeisance to medical
"authorities", whether they be psychiatrists, obstetricians, endocrinologists, family docs, or off-beat faddists. Painless
childbirth, megavitamins, organic diets, primal screams,
psychoanalysis, prayer, hypnotism, and sincere religiosity are given about equal weight throughout. Why
not a little bit of everything on the happy road to
good feelings?

Which leads me to my dissatisfaction not only with
this book, but the whole section of similar books by
well intentioned and variously informed and informing
Christian psychologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians,
astoral counselors, and lay healers, etc. First, the books all have a remarkable sameness even to the point
of drabness; like bearing variations of the same rock
tune, beat, and words on the local radio station. The
message is the now accepted "conventional wisdom"
of Christendom. We all know that Christians should
and can rid themselves of those noxious and bothersome feelings. So maybe these books are not really
"helping" change people; maybe they are just affirming how people are thinking, feeling, and behaving
already.

My second dissatisfaction stems from the first.
What does this say about our current operating assumptions about the desiderata of the Christian Life?
Following the activism of the 1960's, the mood of the
country has turned inward and personal private values
have become paramount again. Personal satisfaction
and the values of the life lived come not from contributions toward larger goals beyond the self, but simply
from "feeling good -within oneself." In psychiatric
jargon we label this narcissism-excessive preoccupation
with the importance and function of the self. I know
people who don't exercise because it makes their body
ache, people who don't think about current social problems because it perplexes and frightens them, people
who don't pray because it provokes awareness.

I am quite aware of the crippling disability that
doubt, fear, guilt, anxiety, jealousy, hostility, timidity
and the rest of the panoply of emotions can produce.
There are certain segments of Christendom that have
promoted denial, repression, and neurotic mismanagement of our emotions, and it is refreshing that we
-have moved beyond that. But I still feel uneasy. We lack a coherent and consistent
theology for construction
of an emotional agenda for life. The genre of book
under discussion seems to support the notion that the Christian life is fulfilled in internal emotional tranquility. Is this
merely a sanctified version of cultural narcissistic pre-occupation? I find it remarkable that
young people are flocking to religious and quasi-religious movements that call them to commitments
that involve and extend them beyond themselves. Emotional pains may not all be neurotic, and so what if
they are? Great men and women have probably exhibited more of their share of neurotic elements than
the happy, healthy, sane everyman on the street. These
books, whole shelves of them, seem to suggest that
Christian fulfillment is a state of decent feelings. But
I should like to quote a current popular song: "Is
that all there is, my friend?"

Reviewed by E. ManseU Pattison, Professor and Vice-Chaiman, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of California, Irvine.

For each of us, death is the last ultimate reality we
must confront on this earth. Death comes to every
person and we are usually ill-prepared to meet it.
Perhaps in ages past, when men lived closer to nature,
when people interacted more closely and more frequently, death could be confronted and dealt with
because it was seen, not hidden. Today our society
is extremely depersonalized and compartmentalized.
Until recently, death could not be employed as a topic
for polite conversation; euphemisms were used when
the subject was discussed to avoid facing the matter.
Dying is no longer done at home; it takes place in the
violence of the street or the battlefield or in the sterile,
lonely hospital room where the patient is surrounded
not by friends and family, but by intricate mechanical
and electronic devices which quietly click and hum
as they accurately measure out the last hours of a
person's life.

There is a rebellion taking place against this hiding
of death and once again we are feeling free to discuss
openly this aspect of our existence. The pioneering
work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross opened the door to an
extended consideration of death and a flood of books
and articles have come forth since her work first appeared. Debate has been raised on the question of
when death actually takes lace; many legal, medical
and moral decisions depends on a reliable, consistent
answer to this question. Much helpful information
has come forth on practical aspects of dealing with
death in the family. As our technology threatens to
depersonalize us, we reassert our humanity by grappling anew with basic issues that affect us as persons.

Religion plays an important role in any discussion
about death, for it is e role of religion to provide
ultimate answers to man's questions. Eberhard Jungel
enters the discussion by considering how theology
approaches the findings of medicine, sociology and
philosophy related to death. Formerly professor of
systematic theology at the University of Zurich, Jungel
is currently on the faculty at the University of Turbingen. His book is divided into two sections: the first
is entitled "The Riddle of Death" and approaches the
question from an anthropological, medical, psychological and sociological point of view;
the second section, "The Mystery of Death" approaches death from
a theological standpoint and dials with the Biblical
teachings regarding death and the resurrection.

In considering death as one of life's questions, Jungel
first explores the thoughts of a variety of authors and
attempts a synthesis of the varied outlooks. Although
coming from different directions, all the writers acknowledge the inevitability of the process and see some
value in facing the reality of the question.

The discussion of physical death considers the various signs of death. Jungel does not explore one of
the current and crucial questions surrounding death:
when is a person "really dead"? He leaves the medical
and ethical considerations of this key area to others
to explore and contents himself with a simple description of some of the more obvious and less controversialaspectsof physical death.

When he comes to philosophical aspects of death, Jungel begins to develop the theological concepts he
will explore in the second section of his book. Unfortunately he limits his discussion to a consideration
of pre-Christian Greek philosophy, probably out of his
concern for their influence on early Christian thinking
about death. Some mention of current philosophical
approaches and problems regarding death would have
been of value in dealing with contemporary questions
about the subject.

When Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life.
Whoever believes in me will live, even though he
dies . . ." (John 11:25), he laid down a challenge to
all the forces which strive to limit our existence. When
he was crucified, buried and then raised from the
dead, he showed the power of God that transcends
death and conquers it. The Christian faith affirms
that we can overcome death and that our lives need not
be limited by the grave. The Old Testament view of
death is shown by Jungel to be a limited one, affirming
God as giver of life, showing life to be a relationship
with God and viewing death as terminating that relationship. There is no hope of life beyond the grave
and death is seen as the end to all things. It is not
until we come to Christ and the New Testament
writings that a promise of life after this earthly one
is offered. Jungel considers the role of the death of
Jesus, his resurrection and all its implications to the
Christian community.

The book is concluded with a consideration of the
death of death. Since we die to sin, are buried with
Christ in baptism and arise to walk in new life
(Romans 6), physical death no longer offers a threat
to the Christian. Removal of the fear of death of the body brings new responsibilities and new challenges
to the Christian.

Eberhard Jungel has written a challenging book
that raises many questions and offers answers to some.
Its weakness (if it be such) is in the intricate philosophical discussions that may not prove especially
useful to many in considering death in contemporary
society. Its strength lies in an exploration of the
Biblical concept of death and the implications for
each of us in knowing that death has been conquered
by Jesus Christ.

Jerry Wilson's book, from his Ph.D. thesis, fairly
and objectively examines the pros and cons of "easy
death," surveying various positions of the past and
present with a critique of each. Included are surnin

Euthanasia is seen by Wilson as one of the contemporary moral crises intensified by scientific and
technological developments in human medicine. But
among the reasons why euthanasia is a problem are
the following disorientations in our customary points
of view: (1) The secularization of our cultural orientation toward death. (2) The sick attitudes of our society toward death and dying, such as avoidance,
denial, the conspiracy of silence, the inability of the patient's family "to acknowledge the inevitability of his
death and to overcome their grief and guilt," and the
belief and practice of some doctors to "preserve life
as long as possible regardless of how hopeless the
patient's condition."

Anxiety and fear of death account for the failure of
both the medical profession and society in general to
grasp the potentially demonic consequences of useless
extension of life, on the one hand, and of furtive ad
hoc decisions to 'release, the sufferer, on the other.

(3) The outdated definition of legal death. "Appropriate terminal decisions could be made with much
less difficulty if human life were understood to include
at least the potentiality for consciousness and if death
were recognized when the physical substratum for this
level of existence has been destroyed or has degenerated." The distinction between loss of vital functions
and organic death or brain death should be taken
seriously. When the sanctity of life is understood in
human terms then brain death is the "appropriate
basis for a legal as well as a medical definition of
death."
Wilson gives a good discussion of the sanctity of
life principle. "As a basic principle of Christian ethics,
the sanctity of life affirms a person
I
s right to live,"
but "does not translate this right into a necessity."
"From the perspective of Christian faith, the sanctity
of life is not destroyed by death, for death is under
stood as a process of life as it is created and sustained
by God."

A theocentric medical ethic rejects absolutistic medical and legal norms against euthanasia because they
place more importance on the life of the patient than
on his personal needs. Theocentric love begins with
the needs of patients as persons. The patient, in so far
as he is able, should be permitted to make his own
medical decisions. When "his suffering cannot be relieved adequately or his condition renders his life
hopelessly intolerable, he should be permitted to
refuse treatment to prolong his life."

Voluntary euthanasia, both active and passive, ought
to be sanctioned in response to the needs and claims of
the dying,' because each person is the master of his
own body. Euthanasia is justifiable at the request of
a competent terminal patient or when it is not against
his wishes, with his nearest relative or guardian deciding in his incapacity. 'The right to die should not
be denied!

In October 1976, California became the first state in
our nation to legalize the "living will" for death with
dignity
whereby a terminal patient of sound mind may declare his refusal of treatment to prolong his
life.
Legislation to permit voluntary euthanasia with the
safeguards mentioned would protect each patient's
right to die and to preserve his right to live. A reform of "professional and legal standards of medical practice to make them more responsive to patients who
are suffering and dying" must be made by people of
"faith and good will in order to exercise wisely and
humanely the power of life and death created by contemporary science and technology."

Wilson summarizes 5 principal arguments for euthanasia: (1) The dignity of life is superior to the
value of life
per se. (2)
The relief of suffering is
more important than the physician's responsibility to
prolong life at all costs. (3) The patient's right to be
at liberty has precedence "over the value of life which
is radically restricted" (the principle of individual
autonomy to decide what is to be done to his person) *
(4) The right to justice or fair treatment in permitting
the practice of euthanasia. Although

the law in theory is a product of medical ethics and
social norms that take seriously the role of the physician
as the preserver of life . . . . the legal decisions that are
made and the judgments . . . that are rendered suggest
that we tend to regard the practice of euthanasia less
as a moral evil or crime and more as the unfortunate
but necessary and humane response to human need and
suffering.

Many cases are cited to illustrate his points. (5) The
principle of utility or "usefulness as a means to the
ends prescribed by society" considers the burdens of
suffering and dying without euthanasia that are placed
on society. However, "responsible medical care cannot
condone euthanasia as a eugenic measure."

All Christians need to evaluate these concerns and
think through their own responses based on biblical
principles, as Wilson does in this book.

Francis Schaeffer is one of the most active and prolific Christian apologists today. It is no surprise then
that someone, such as Morris, has written an analysis
and critique of Schaeffer's apologetics. The book is
divided into two parts. The first outlines Schaeffer's
apologetic particularly as presented in
The God Who
Is There
and
He Is There and He Is Not Silent.
According to Morris, Schaeffer's arguments are largely "arguments from design". Schaeffer looks at the
universe and man around him, then demonstrates that
the nature of the universe and man is such that certain
presuppositions or hypotheses (in this case Biblical
Christian presuppositions), explain it better than others.
He subsequently argues for the truth of the presuppositions which fit best with the facts about man and
the universe. His argument follows the same pattern as
that of a scientist in defending the "best" of several
competing hypotheses.

In the area of metaphysics, for example, Schaeffer
argues that human personality is real, and hence a
model of the universe (the Christian one) which explains origins in terms of a personal beginning has
greater validity than a cosmogonic model based on an impersonal beginning. He claims that the impersonal
beginning does not adequately explain human personality, man's need for fulfillment, meaning, purpose.
love, beauty, and order. Similarly, in the area of
epistemology, Schaeffer rejects the modern position
that the universe is a closed system of cause any effect,
in favor of the biblical view of an open universe. He
claims that the former leads to a divided field of
knowledge, because when the universe is viewed as
a determined machine, there is no place for purpose
or meaning in human life. Since man cannot live consistently without purpose and meaning he has to reintroduce them irrationally into a separate compartment
of his mind. Thus, the biblical view provides a better
basis for man's knowledge of himself and of the world
around him. Schaeffer also goes on to demonstrate
the congruity of the Christian gospel with man's moral
nature. On the basis of these arguments be claims to
have demonstrated the necessity of the Christian position, and hence elicits assent from his reader to the
truth of Christianity.

Morris criticizes Schaeffer's position in two ways. In
each argument, Morris maintains that Schaeffer has
overstated his case. He has claimed to have shown that
the Christian position is the only tenable one. However, according to Morris, he has shown only that the
Christian position is a relatively more probable one,
in that it fits better with our knowledge of our own
humanity and the real world around us. Morris's second
major criticism of Schaeffer is that be views human
thought and decision making processes as much too
logical and mechanical. There are a multitude of nonlogical aspects of human thought. We do not necessarily think in a series of logically necessary steps. We
are influenced by our emotions, predispositions, metabolic state, etc., and Schaeffer does not adequately consider these non-logical aspects of human thought.

The second part of Morris's book attempts to justify
the use of apologetics in evangelism. Morris states that
the major role of apologetics is to make the claims of
Christianity more probable to the listener, and to move
his thinking closer to the Christian position. However,
he recognizes the limitation of apologetics, and points
out that an apologetic alone is incapable of bringing a
person into the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, "No one
can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him".

This is a very valuable book for anyone interested
in Schaeffer's presentation of the gospel or in the role
of apologetics; in evangelism. Morris raises some serious criticisms of Schaeffer's work. Most important, in
my mind, is the charge that Schaeffer often overstates
his case and reaches conclusions unjustified by his
data. However, the criticism is leveled in a constructive manner, and should be of great use to anyone
who uses Schaeffer's books and arguments as one means
of presenting the gospel. I would rather have the
weaknesses in my arguments pointed out in Christian
love by a friend, than by my adversaries.

These books, together with additional reading
(Genesis and Geology by C. C. Gillispie, Science and
Religious Belief: A Selection of Primary Sources by
D. C. Goodman, Religion and the Rise of Modern
Science by R. Hooykaas, and Scien-ce and Religious
Belief: A Selection of Recent Historical Studies by C.
A. Russell), and radio and TV programs, constitute
a course by the Open University of Great Britain. They
are a resource which is invaluable to anyone involved
in understanding the historical relationships between
science and Christian thought, and particularly to
anyone who is teaching a course or seminar in this
area. Taken as they stand, supplemented with external reading, the books form an excellent basis for
a year-long course that would provide profound insight into many of the controversies that still exercise
those seeking to relate science and Christian faith.

The orientation of the writing is toward deriving
understanding of historical events and opinions from
an analysis of the historical writings themselves. Thus
references to original writings of scientists and others
are sprinkled throughout the text, as well as being
referred to in the supplementary reading selections. The
student everywhere is encouraged to think for himself,
is provided with clearly stated guides for the evaluation
of his progress, and is constantly given opportunities
for thinking through a problem before proceeding to
the author's particular responses. Starting with an
assessment of the problems involved in writing a
history of scientific thought, the books pick up the
issue with the Copernican controversy and follow it
through the aftermath of the Darwinian controversy.

A very brief sample of the topics covered would
include: four historical treatments of the science and
belief theme, biblical exegesis and the motion of the
earth, Galileo and theology, a thorough analysis of
Descartes including his account of living things, mechanical philosophy and the Providence of God, three
pitfalls of historiography, English deists and freethinkers, Voltaire, evolution vs creation in the 18th century,
Quaker contributions, the rise of natural theology, reigious attitudes of geologists, uniformitarianism vs
catastrophism in the early 19th century, the nature of
life, the balance of nature, Darwin, difficulties in the
reception of the Darwinian hypothesis, history of nature, historical and physical causality in nature and
history, and the specific challenge of Darwinism to
religion.

The student fortunate enough to be guided through
these pages by a perceptive teacher will be struck
repeatedly by the continuity of ideas over the past
several hundred years, and by the similarity between
many issues now aggravating the Christian community
and corresponding issues of the past. It has been said
that whoever neglects the past and fails to learn from
it is sentenced to relive the past. In our own time we
find a distinct disinterest in the lessons of history.
Careful attention to the material of these booklets will
be a healthy antidote.

Here are two books written by non-Christians with
quite different perspectives, which if taken together
make a fascinating basis for a seminar among engineering students in a Christian context. They both
agree that the basic trouble with the world lies in
human nature; Harman sees a way out through a new
consciousness, whereas Florman sees no way of changing human nature. Using these two perspectives as
counterpoint to the Christian approach provides useful
insights.

Harman carries out an analysis of the causes of our
present social predicament and prescribes solutions for
that predicament. His book consists of three welldefined parts, with no necessary connection between
them, First he offers a cogent analysis of the nature
of future dilemmas (growth, work-roles, distribution,
control) and of their basis in the presently accepted
industrial paradigm (industrialization, scientific method, material progress, pragmatic values). Then he
proposes ideals for social restructuring through a new
social paradigm emphasizing the importance of value
postulates, a re-evaluation of science, recognition of
a spiritual order, an ecological ethic, and a teleological
perspective. Although all of these ideals are exactly
correlatable with the biblical perspective, Harman rejects the historical religions as being authoritarian and
enters into instead what might be briefly described
as special pleading for monistic pantheism. The ultimate
weakness of his conclusions lies in his implicit assumption that to know what is ethically beneficial will
automatically provide the human will to do that which
is ethically beneficial. He makes the traditional error
of almost all non-Judaeo-Christian religious perspectives in seeing ignorance as evil and education as
salvation.

It is Florman's task to challenge all the modem prophets of doom who see technology as the cause
of society's troubles and the engineer as the ally of the
devil. He argues that it is not a lack of morality on
the part of the engineer that has gotten us into such
troubles as technology may have brought us, but
rather the nature of human wants. He boldly takes on
the prophets of anti-technology such as Jacques Ellull
Lewis Mumford, Rene Dubos, Charles A. Reich and
Theodore Roszak, and does a reasonably effective job
of standing their arguments on their heads. Flormar's
major weakness is his conviction that positions calling
for a change in the nature of man are hopelessly
idealistic.

Contemporary man is not content because he wants
more than he can ever have. . . . Man has always
been afraid of his urge to do more and know more. . . But he is constitutionally unable to restrain himself.
(p. 75)

Florman is also challenging when he argues that
there is a proper and necessary place for "materialism" in human life. He makes the needed distinction
between letting material things become our gods, and
the healthy rejoicing in the works of our hands. He
finds a healthy regard for human craftmanship in the
Homeric tales and in the Old Testament, and a disquieting depreciation of human craftmanship in the
Periclean Age and in the New Testament. In the
Old Testament,

The engineering impulse comes to man as a gift from
God. Material enterprise is not to be shunned; it is to
be pursued energetically, but with the service of God
always kept uppermost in mind. (p. 112)

In the New Testament, however,

The lesson is repeated again and again in resounding
prose. It is foolish as well as profane to be concerned
with material goods, since they do not endure. Fire,
rust, and moth are ever at the ready to destroy our
handiwork. It is prudent as well as pious, therefore,
to concentrate on thoughts of eternity. (p. 103)

. . the effect of our Greek and Christian heritage has
been to convince us that materialism is a defect in
human nature. We refer to our materialistic society
with shame. We feel guilty because we are not more
spiritual. (p. 103)

Here are questions for Christians to consider, especially
in the context of the meaning and significance of
applied science, engineering and technology in society
today. The exploration of their full significance appears to lie at a very fundamental level of the relationship between Christian faith and applied science.
I would like very much to see ASA members develop
a Christian response to Florman, which is a somewhat
more difficult task than to formulate a Christian response to Harman.1

1R.
H. Bube, "The Biblical Basis for a New Social Paradigm,"
The Reformed journal, (1977).

Os Guinness was a former associate of Francis
Schaeffer at L'Abri Fellowship in Switzerland. He now
lives in London. His first book,
The Dust of Death,
was designated by
Eternity
magazine as the most
significant book of the year.

In Two Minds
is about the dilemma of doubt and
how to resolve it. Guinness defines unbelief as a willful refusal to believe or of a deliberate decision to
disobey whereas doubt is a state of suspension between
faith and unbelief. He thinks that it is possible to
distinguish between faith, doubt and unbelief in theory:
to believe is to be in one mind, to disbelieve is to be
in another, and to doubt is to be in two minds. In
practice the distinction is not always clear.

The book is divided into four main arts
seventeen chapters. In part one, Guinness defines the
problem of doubt. In part two, he talks about families
of doubt. In part three, he writes of care and counsel
for the doubter. In part four, Guinness deals with
doubt from insistent inquisitiveness and doubt from
impatience or giving up.

Guinness writes well and he has the ability to express complex issues simply He readily supplies apt
illustrations. He deals with doubt sympathetically from
both the psychological and biblical perspectives. His
insights are very helpful. Their impact will be felt
especially by doubters who happen to read this book,
and that includes everyone at some point in life.